Benjamins
Apr 15, 11:09 PM
In fairness to Google, no one said that they were out to destroy iTunes or anything like that. They've got a growing mobile business, and it makes sense that they want to make some cohesive media store.
Likewise, Apple is trying to grow its online/cloud services (Google's strength)! Funny, they are kind of moving towards each other in that sense...
What does a music store have anything to do with a mobile business.
No one before Apple had a music store that goes along with a mobile business.
It makes sense now because Apple did it.
Likewise, Apple is trying to grow its online/cloud services (Google's strength)! Funny, they are kind of moving towards each other in that sense...
What does a music store have anything to do with a mobile business.
No one before Apple had a music store that goes along with a mobile business.
It makes sense now because Apple did it.
Full of Win
Apr 29, 04:41 PM
For the love of god get rid of the faux leather.
Its so ugly. I hope there will be a hack that will bring some taste back to 10.7.
Its so ugly. I hope there will be a hack that will bring some taste back to 10.7.
ivladster
Mar 28, 04:20 PM
Welcome to 1984.
You know there are plenty of other platforms and OS, so no it's not 1984, it's 2011!
You know there are plenty of other platforms and OS, so no it's not 1984, it's 2011!
NoSmokingBandit
Nov 14, 09:47 PM
MW2's plot wasn't too ludicrous. You infiltrate a Russian terrorist cell, you're commanding officer betrays you, starts a war between the US and Russia. The only ludicrous part that I can remember is a nuke blowing apart the ISS.
There are many things wrong with MW2's plot. Instead of typing them all out i'll just copypasta them.
�As the mission opens, we�re treated to General Shepherd reciting a litany of Makarov�s excesses over a montage of shocking headlines. Makarov is an internationally known figure of menace, then, with a Russian military record. So when he confidently machineguns his way through the airport without even bothering to put on a mask, are we to believe that the Russian authorities weren�t able to identify him from security camera footage?
Instead, Russia blames a nobody CIA agent found dead at the scene who was killed by a point-blank pistol shot to the head. That doesn�t raise any red flags at all? The obvious conclusion is that the whole thing was an American plot, and that a full-scale invasion of the continental US is the appropriate response. The transition to the Takedown favela mission begets more confusion, such as: how did Shepherd tie the shell casings to Rojas? Meticulous analysis of the cutscene indicates that he actually re-created a 3D model of a shell casing from security camera footage, which was sufficiently hi-rez to make a match against a big bullet database. So the Russians, who had the actual shell casings to analyze, couldn�t figure that out? The security footage was crisp enough to recreate minute detail on a spent shell casing, but not of sufficient quality to identify Makarov�s face. Conclusion: Makarov�s face is smaller than a bullet.
�When the warriors of 141 get to South America, they make short work of tracking down their man. Unfortunately, HQ won�t send a helicopter to extract them from the favela so Soap rings up his old pal Nikolai on a payphone. Luckily, the Russian informant just so happens to be tooling around Rio in a chopper and pops right over to pick them up. The mission itself, dashing weaponless across rooftops and frantically leaping to safety, was brilliant fun in the heat of the moment. But upon reflection, we must concede that nothing about the scenario makes a bit of sense. But look, it�s Nikolai!!
�With his newfound freedom, Price�s first order of business is to launch a nuclear warhead at the east coast of the United States, with the goal of snuffing out the Russian invasion. Of course, he wasn�t planning to nuke America outright. When a nuclear explosion occurs in space, the only effect is an EMP blast that destroys all unshielded electronics in its line of sight.
While it made for an intensely dramatic scene as the burst rippled across America and demolished the ISS, there�s no way Price could have launched a missile from a Russian nuclear sub by himself. Did he just ring up Nikolai on a payphone to get the launch codes? How did he singlehandedly defeat the physical safety measures? You don�t just push the glowy red button with the mean face on it. There are elaborate control systems in place to prevent just such unauthorized launches.
http://static.gamesradar.com/images/mb/GamesRadar/us/Games/M/Modern%20Warfare%202/Everything%20else/plot%20holes/Finished/112009_modernwarfare2_obs06--article_image.jpg
Above: Two people have to turn launch keys simultaneously to fire a real nuclear missile
One more thing: how did Price get it to detonate in space, anyhow? We�re pretty sure that wasn�t part of the missile�s original instructions. Regardless, if the Russians were serious about their �kill America� plan from the get-go, they probably would have launched HEMP and nuclear strikes of their own as a precursor to the invasion.
�Once the Russians have been successfully repelled, Shepherd and Task Force 141 get down to the business of mopping up Makarov. Shepherd calls out two potential hiding places, the �last safe havens on earth for Makarov and his men.� Incidentally, no one stopped to wonder how Shepherd suddenly uncovered these safe havens or, if he knew about them all along, why they weren�t investigated after the airport massacre. But wait! Intel gathered at one of the safehouses links Makarov to Shepherd: cue the shocking murder of Ghost and Roach at Shepherd�s hands.
Devastated, Price and Soap moan about how they�re all alone in the world with no one to turn to. Umm, guys? Aren�t you technically still officers in the British Armed Forces? Sure Shepherd was calling the duo �terrorists,� but America�s credibility on the world stage was shot to hell after the airport incident. Someone over at SAS would remember the heroes who gunned down Zakhaev and send help. No? OK, better just grab Nikolai and go after the bad guy yourselves.
Theres more you can read on your own, but these are the biggest imo.
http://www.gamesradar.com/f/modern-warfare-2s-glaring-plot-holes-exposed/a-20091120123332495077/p-1
There are many things wrong with MW2's plot. Instead of typing them all out i'll just copypasta them.
�As the mission opens, we�re treated to General Shepherd reciting a litany of Makarov�s excesses over a montage of shocking headlines. Makarov is an internationally known figure of menace, then, with a Russian military record. So when he confidently machineguns his way through the airport without even bothering to put on a mask, are we to believe that the Russian authorities weren�t able to identify him from security camera footage?
Instead, Russia blames a nobody CIA agent found dead at the scene who was killed by a point-blank pistol shot to the head. That doesn�t raise any red flags at all? The obvious conclusion is that the whole thing was an American plot, and that a full-scale invasion of the continental US is the appropriate response. The transition to the Takedown favela mission begets more confusion, such as: how did Shepherd tie the shell casings to Rojas? Meticulous analysis of the cutscene indicates that he actually re-created a 3D model of a shell casing from security camera footage, which was sufficiently hi-rez to make a match against a big bullet database. So the Russians, who had the actual shell casings to analyze, couldn�t figure that out? The security footage was crisp enough to recreate minute detail on a spent shell casing, but not of sufficient quality to identify Makarov�s face. Conclusion: Makarov�s face is smaller than a bullet.
�When the warriors of 141 get to South America, they make short work of tracking down their man. Unfortunately, HQ won�t send a helicopter to extract them from the favela so Soap rings up his old pal Nikolai on a payphone. Luckily, the Russian informant just so happens to be tooling around Rio in a chopper and pops right over to pick them up. The mission itself, dashing weaponless across rooftops and frantically leaping to safety, was brilliant fun in the heat of the moment. But upon reflection, we must concede that nothing about the scenario makes a bit of sense. But look, it�s Nikolai!!
�With his newfound freedom, Price�s first order of business is to launch a nuclear warhead at the east coast of the United States, with the goal of snuffing out the Russian invasion. Of course, he wasn�t planning to nuke America outright. When a nuclear explosion occurs in space, the only effect is an EMP blast that destroys all unshielded electronics in its line of sight.
While it made for an intensely dramatic scene as the burst rippled across America and demolished the ISS, there�s no way Price could have launched a missile from a Russian nuclear sub by himself. Did he just ring up Nikolai on a payphone to get the launch codes? How did he singlehandedly defeat the physical safety measures? You don�t just push the glowy red button with the mean face on it. There are elaborate control systems in place to prevent just such unauthorized launches.
http://static.gamesradar.com/images/mb/GamesRadar/us/Games/M/Modern%20Warfare%202/Everything%20else/plot%20holes/Finished/112009_modernwarfare2_obs06--article_image.jpg
Above: Two people have to turn launch keys simultaneously to fire a real nuclear missile
One more thing: how did Price get it to detonate in space, anyhow? We�re pretty sure that wasn�t part of the missile�s original instructions. Regardless, if the Russians were serious about their �kill America� plan from the get-go, they probably would have launched HEMP and nuclear strikes of their own as a precursor to the invasion.
�Once the Russians have been successfully repelled, Shepherd and Task Force 141 get down to the business of mopping up Makarov. Shepherd calls out two potential hiding places, the �last safe havens on earth for Makarov and his men.� Incidentally, no one stopped to wonder how Shepherd suddenly uncovered these safe havens or, if he knew about them all along, why they weren�t investigated after the airport massacre. But wait! Intel gathered at one of the safehouses links Makarov to Shepherd: cue the shocking murder of Ghost and Roach at Shepherd�s hands.
Devastated, Price and Soap moan about how they�re all alone in the world with no one to turn to. Umm, guys? Aren�t you technically still officers in the British Armed Forces? Sure Shepherd was calling the duo �terrorists,� but America�s credibility on the world stage was shot to hell after the airport incident. Someone over at SAS would remember the heroes who gunned down Zakhaev and send help. No? OK, better just grab Nikolai and go after the bad guy yourselves.
Theres more you can read on your own, but these are the biggest imo.
http://www.gamesradar.com/f/modern-warfare-2s-glaring-plot-holes-exposed/a-20091120123332495077/p-1
more...
ghostface147
Apr 15, 04:48 PM
I am more curious how the labels are going to try to renegotiate contracts with Apple once Steve moves on.
I am not too sure Tim Cook or anyone of his pay grade is as tough as Steve is when it comes to these label execs.
I am not too sure Tim Cook or anyone of his pay grade is as tough as Steve is when it comes to these label execs.
mike5411
Apr 5, 03:08 PM
they should allow users to like or dislike iAds to help cater the iAds that are sent to the user :cool:
more...
thejadedmonkey
Mar 28, 02:14 PM
Seriously Apple, how soon until the app store is the only way to install apps on your mac?
macbwizard
Mar 28, 02:26 PM
Good. I'm all in favor of Apple adding more incentives for devs to embrace the Mac App store. As a consumer I really like the idea of an App Store that makes buying and installing as easy as one click as well as fostering competition between comparable apps.
more...
Full of Win
Mar 28, 02:54 PM
It's a hell of a lot easier updating your apps and re-installing applications through the Mac App Store than any previous method. You don't have to check every single app on your machine to see if it's updated, nor do you have to go to the developers website if they don't have an automatic updater or even a manual updater.
I'll give it does have advantages. I don't think I would agree that it is "a hell of a lot easier", as most apps have an automatic updater or some mechanism to make you aware that an update is available.
The Mac App store updating mechanism is flawed, at least in my experience. For example, a few days ago the Mac App Store did not detect that I had the app Awaken 4 on my mac, even thought they host Awaken 5 on the store. I had to go to the developers website and download Awaken 5 and then update it the old fashioned way.
I'll give it does have advantages. I don't think I would agree that it is "a hell of a lot easier", as most apps have an automatic updater or some mechanism to make you aware that an update is available.
The Mac App store updating mechanism is flawed, at least in my experience. For example, a few days ago the Mac App Store did not detect that I had the app Awaken 4 on my mac, even thought they host Awaken 5 on the store. I had to go to the developers website and download Awaken 5 and then update it the old fashioned way.
tvachon
Jan 9, 09:24 AM
Sweet, somthing to check out post work, pre gym!
How long is the keynote speech anyway?
2 hours this time around, which is significantly longer than most keynotes Steve does.
How long is the keynote speech anyway?
2 hours this time around, which is significantly longer than most keynotes Steve does.
more...
TequilaBoobs
Nov 27, 05:00 PM
If you purchased an item that was listed as a Black Friday Apple sale items at one of the Apple Retail Stores, I urge you to check you receipt to see if you got the sale price. I was at the Apple Chicago Michigan Ave. Store on Friday and purchased two sale items (the Nike+ ipod adapter and the Ingroove Neoprene sleeve for the Macbook). While both items were listed as sale items on the in store flyer and on the Apple web site, when I checked out with an Apple associate using a handheld terminal I was charged the FULL PRICE of these items.:eek: Since I discovered this when I got home, I called the Apple Store to request a refund. after a bit of an arguement, i was told i would get a refund in a few days. Today I got a refund on the Nike+ item, but not on the Ingroove sleeve. Looks like I will be calling the apple store again. :mad:
I can only imagine the thousands of people who thought that they were getting an item at the sale price and were actually charged full price.:mad:
i think it only happened to you.:confused:
I can only imagine the thousands of people who thought that they were getting an item at the sale price and were actually charged full price.:mad:
i think it only happened to you.:confused:
steadysignal
Apr 15, 07:35 PM
What about Amazon? Jobs made the big fuss about ending DRM, but he kept negotiating with the labels unsuccessfully, because he didn't want variable pricing either. So all the labels gave DRM-free tracks to Amazon. No DRM, but variable pricing. Jobs had to cave eventually.
seamless is only good for so much with the DRM.
i buy more and more off Amazon to get the open format.
seamless is only good for so much with the DRM.
i buy more and more off Amazon to get the open format.
more...
JTR7
Oct 9, 04:15 PM
Most Americans do not have what you do. And to the person who said I've never experienced "4 screaming kids," I have.
I think you both are just use to having more, and space, and more space. My grandmother raised her six children in a three bedroom, one bath home � that she shared with my grandfather � and never had any issues. My grandparents, mother or my aunts never complained, and looking back, I think the experience enriched them tenfold. My grandparents were successful and could have afforded a home with "enough space" (by your standards) for all their kids, but they made out just fine in the first floor of an apartment building with "just" 2,200sq. feet.
Used to having more? No. I am one of eight kids and my wife is one of ten. We both grew up in modest houses. Mine was 4 bedrooms 2 baths, same as hers. It did not enrich my life. My sister and I never got along because of tight quarters, and after we moved out our relationship remained tense. We finally started getting along just before she died. My house now is 4 bedrooms 2 baths, one of which is converted to an office. My sons and daughters share their rooms. But, given another chance (we bought the house before our first, who would have thought there'd be 3 more) we would have made a home elsewhere. Now that this is home, it's hard to leave.
Don't presume to know my "standards". We have enough space, but doing it all over I'd choose more. I work hard. I make money accordingly. What's money for if not improving the lives of my family? I don't want a big house for no purpose, I'd just like enough to give my children some personal space so they don't have to collide every day.
I think you both are just use to having more, and space, and more space. My grandmother raised her six children in a three bedroom, one bath home � that she shared with my grandfather � and never had any issues. My grandparents, mother or my aunts never complained, and looking back, I think the experience enriched them tenfold. My grandparents were successful and could have afforded a home with "enough space" (by your standards) for all their kids, but they made out just fine in the first floor of an apartment building with "just" 2,200sq. feet.
Used to having more? No. I am one of eight kids and my wife is one of ten. We both grew up in modest houses. Mine was 4 bedrooms 2 baths, same as hers. It did not enrich my life. My sister and I never got along because of tight quarters, and after we moved out our relationship remained tense. We finally started getting along just before she died. My house now is 4 bedrooms 2 baths, one of which is converted to an office. My sons and daughters share their rooms. But, given another chance (we bought the house before our first, who would have thought there'd be 3 more) we would have made a home elsewhere. Now that this is home, it's hard to leave.
Don't presume to know my "standards". We have enough space, but doing it all over I'd choose more. I work hard. I make money accordingly. What's money for if not improving the lives of my family? I don't want a big house for no purpose, I'd just like enough to give my children some personal space so they don't have to collide every day.
Bonte
Oct 29, 10:26 AM
Remember the years of the clones? Apple is a whole widget company. They will not suceede by emulating M$ and selling software to other peoples hardware. Ever.
Steve wasn't on board with the first clones and Apple wasn't on Intel yet, in my eyes there have been clear signs (now and in the past) that Apple and Steve are still open for the idea of licensing osX to other vendors if necessary. There big time investors also won't take 'just because' as an answer to why Apple won't license there OS, if the growth stops than there is no alternative.
Don't forget hell did froze over several times lately.
Steve wasn't on board with the first clones and Apple wasn't on Intel yet, in my eyes there have been clear signs (now and in the past) that Apple and Steve are still open for the idea of licensing osX to other vendors if necessary. There big time investors also won't take 'just because' as an answer to why Apple won't license there OS, if the growth stops than there is no alternative.
Don't forget hell did froze over several times lately.
more...
secondhandloser
Mar 11, 01:42 PM
Milestone 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0FtgZNOD44
Milestone 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftf4riVJyqw
Milestone 3 (the most recent):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBhYxj2SvRI
Any questions?
[Citation needed]
Fun fact: Showing SJ talk does not mean Apple has "redefined" computing. They have helped evolve it, as a player in the industry, of course. Hardly anything that could be called redefining.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0FtgZNOD44
Milestone 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftf4riVJyqw
Milestone 3 (the most recent):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBhYxj2SvRI
Any questions?
[Citation needed]
Fun fact: Showing SJ talk does not mean Apple has "redefined" computing. They have helped evolve it, as a player in the industry, of course. Hardly anything that could be called redefining.
wasabeeguy
Apr 15, 11:43 PM
look, i could make the exact thing in blender and render it in luxrender. and make it 10x more real looking cmon.
more...
MagicBoy
Mar 24, 08:18 PM
It's drifting off topic. I'm not going to turn a "Happy Birthday OS X" thread into a the time honoured "Windows sucks" debate. If anyone wants to discuss it then I suggest they create a new thread called "Windows vs Mac part 677249 (cont)"
SMM
Oct 2, 09:21 PM
Well, he currently eyeing selling the tech to companies, presumably some of which are willing to spend big bucks to jam their way into the iPod + iTunes ecosphere. At least now, it's clear it's mostly about making moola.
Yes, we all know the moral high-ground corporations take. Regardless of any moral principals involved, it is 'can we get away with it?', or even more disgusting, 'can we make enough profit to justify the legal settlement?'. It is truly a sorry state of affairs we find ourselves in; where the moral fiber of our country is solely based on the personal pursuit of wealth. Personally, I find this individual loathsome.
Yes, we all know the moral high-ground corporations take. Regardless of any moral principals involved, it is 'can we get away with it?', or even more disgusting, 'can we make enough profit to justify the legal settlement?'. It is truly a sorry state of affairs we find ourselves in; where the moral fiber of our country is solely based on the personal pursuit of wealth. Personally, I find this individual loathsome.
Gem�tlichkeit
Apr 6, 04:47 PM
Can't wait :)
IJ Reilly
Oct 19, 01:42 PM
What these guys forget, and everyone else who proposes this, is the fact that OS X solely exists to sell Apple's hardware and not the other way around.
iLife, iWork, OS X, Pro Apps all have the single purpose of selling hardware. Apple is a hardware company by choice, it's what they want to do.
They are not a software house and I can't see them trading away their hardware business to gain OS X marketshare. It's not not what Apple is all about.
I think this is a bit of an over-simplification. Apple is a computer company. A computer = hardware + an operating system + software. This was always the way it was until IBM made their terrible strategic errors with the PC. Now we think companies like Dell make computers. They really don't -- they are Microsoft remarketers.
iLife, iWork, OS X, Pro Apps all have the single purpose of selling hardware. Apple is a hardware company by choice, it's what they want to do.
They are not a software house and I can't see them trading away their hardware business to gain OS X marketshare. It's not not what Apple is all about.
I think this is a bit of an over-simplification. Apple is a computer company. A computer = hardware + an operating system + software. This was always the way it was until IBM made their terrible strategic errors with the PC. Now we think companies like Dell make computers. They really don't -- they are Microsoft remarketers.
Rocketman
Nov 16, 05:50 PM
If you recall, at the 1-06 unveiling of the intel Macs (or maybe it was the conference call Q&A), Steve stated AMD made really good server chips, but Apple makes consumer products.
Perhaps Apple is doing an AMD based blade, or iTV, or some "appliance" product.
The rumour is unlikely to be true however.
Rocketman
Perhaps Apple is doing an AMD based blade, or iTV, or some "appliance" product.
The rumour is unlikely to be true however.
Rocketman
John Purple
Jan 15, 03:13 PM
Genius move, that.
"Old old old?" Not compared to my early-2003 computer. It's dramatically faster, dramatically more efficient, and dramatically more capacious than the machine I've got. Based on the Penryn tests I've seen so far, an MBP update will result in only a marginal improvement. I don't NEED a few extra percent of battery life or performance here and there.
Yes, but for $ 2.500 to 3.000 I would prefer to buy the newest technology.
It is always wiser in the long run IMHO to be a late adopter and buy near the end of a product lifecycle than near the beginning. Early adopters are, and have always been, late beta testers.
Yes, but switching to Penryn and adding Blue-Ray should be no rocket science. I'm not waiting for a fully re-designed MBP.
They still make great products.
Yes, but movie and music markets are quite different to the computer market. And I would be perfectly happy if they would focus as much on their computer business as they do for the rest.
"Old old old?" Not compared to my early-2003 computer. It's dramatically faster, dramatically more efficient, and dramatically more capacious than the machine I've got. Based on the Penryn tests I've seen so far, an MBP update will result in only a marginal improvement. I don't NEED a few extra percent of battery life or performance here and there.
Yes, but for $ 2.500 to 3.000 I would prefer to buy the newest technology.
It is always wiser in the long run IMHO to be a late adopter and buy near the end of a product lifecycle than near the beginning. Early adopters are, and have always been, late beta testers.
Yes, but switching to Penryn and adding Blue-Ray should be no rocket science. I'm not waiting for a fully re-designed MBP.
They still make great products.
Yes, but movie and music markets are quite different to the computer market. And I would be perfectly happy if they would focus as much on their computer business as they do for the rest.
parenthesis
Oct 10, 07:12 PM
I think Apple should keep the name "True Video iPod," just as a salute to all the rumor mongering.
I'd laugh. (and then buy one)
I'd laugh. (and then buy one)
Chip NoVaMac
Mar 13, 04:23 PM
To say that Apple innovates anything these days is disingenuous, at best.
What Apple does is define what is stylish and chic. This isn't a negative thing, however. Style is very important because a poorly designed product can be a pain to use and doesn't make us feel good about our purchases.
There are a host of innovators across the tech world, but Apple isn't one of them. If I want to find the next building material or breakthrough mechanism, I'm certainly not going to look at Apple.
On the other hand, if I want to find the one company that is going to take existing technology and make it stylish, sleek, easy to use, and generally fun to use, then I look squarely at Apple.
No matter how frustrated I become with some of Apple's choices (for example, why can't I have a matte mbp without a custom order like I could a few years ago?), I must admit that its products are always beautiful and much easier to use than others on the market.
That's really where Apple's strength lies. Other companies haven't figured out how to "un-techhead" their product lines.
Can you say just one company that seems to capture the needs/desires as Apple has?
I don'y see lines for the latest Droid phone or pad...
Like it or not of late; Apple knows how do things right...
What Apple does is define what is stylish and chic. This isn't a negative thing, however. Style is very important because a poorly designed product can be a pain to use and doesn't make us feel good about our purchases.
There are a host of innovators across the tech world, but Apple isn't one of them. If I want to find the next building material or breakthrough mechanism, I'm certainly not going to look at Apple.
On the other hand, if I want to find the one company that is going to take existing technology and make it stylish, sleek, easy to use, and generally fun to use, then I look squarely at Apple.
No matter how frustrated I become with some of Apple's choices (for example, why can't I have a matte mbp without a custom order like I could a few years ago?), I must admit that its products are always beautiful and much easier to use than others on the market.
That's really where Apple's strength lies. Other companies haven't figured out how to "un-techhead" their product lines.
Can you say just one company that seems to capture the needs/desires as Apple has?
I don'y see lines for the latest Droid phone or pad...
Like it or not of late; Apple knows how do things right...
No comments:
Post a Comment